Talk:AlMaghrib Institute: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:57, 10 May 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Please do not vandalise this page by removing the controversy section. All that information can be backed up by useful sources. If you are offended by factual information about how most people feel about the institute, then change the institute not the article. Yeayea2006 10:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the controversey section is now missing. Does anybody know who removed it and why? Can anybody rewrite it? MezzoMezzo 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Truth

I think you could've done a fairly better job with the Controversy. The Mawlid is insignificant to other means they have aimed against the rest of the Ulema.

user Yeayea2006 if you are going to write something constructive then please spell correctly.

Please stop vandalising this page

Somebody inserted the remark that the institute is "Wahabbi". There was no citation provided for this nor any discussion of it later in the article. The institution claims on its own site that it holds no particular ideology and while that may be disputed, the dispute belongs in its own section - not in the opening line of the article. MezzoMezzo 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just had to remove the term "Wahhabi" from the name of the institute again. This is getting ridiculous, please do not vandalise the articles. MezzoMezzo 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I did it again now. This is vandalism at this point. To whoever is reading this, please at least provide an explanation before adding things to the description. MezzoMezzo 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute's name

AlMaghrib Institute's official spelling is "AlMaghrib Institute", without the hyphen. This can be attested easily by purusing their site. Also, the forums has reference for this (currently offline, so I can't find the link...)

Currently, there is a redirect from the correct spelling to the incorrect spelling. I'm not entirely sure about WP's policy of canoncial article titles, so I'm bringing this up for discussion. If I find anything new or no responses for a while, I'll probably try and instate the change myself.--Abu Hurayrah 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is done. Cheers, Crimethinker 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Credibility

I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy keep on that AfD proves that the above comment by an SPA was nonsense. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instructors

5+2+2+2=11 instructors. What about the other 6?? (it says there are 17, then gives these numbers)

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. [[User:Board56|Board56]] ([[User talk:Board56|talk]]) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 *The speedy ''keep'' on that AfD proves that the above comment by an SPA was nonsense. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
+== Instructors ==
++2+2+2=11 instructors. What about the other 6?? (it says there are 17, then gives these numbers)